madman moe

Correct me if I'm wrong, but hasn't all this automation that has been implemented in the past couple decades simply moved the flight engineer to the overhead panel and EICAS? How exactly have the basic duties of the guys in seats 0A and B changed?

DYNASTY HVY

YES! To question one .And here is the answer to question 2 -The basic duties have not changed and neither has the responsibilty.

KC10 FATboy

Actually, as someone who flew with an engineer for 8 years on the DC-10, I can definitely say that non-engineer airplanes have put more workload on the pilots -- even if HAL, EICAS,or george is doing some of the work. You find this out the hard way when something goes wrong or out of the norm.

-Fatty

Flyboy8784

Well Said Captain Goodman

One of these days SkyHigh will eventually stop trying to justify his career change to all of us and find something better to do. But for now we all all stuck with his unwanted opinions

L'il J.Seinfeld

I like to fly. It's fun. But the predominant reason I fly is for the money. The fact that life on reserve is phenomenol and I work 10 hours a month makes it better. But if the pay was cut, I'd get in another line of work.

satchip

You may not agree with Sky but the FAA does. Why else does it allow 250 hour pilots in the right seat of a Part 121 jet? Management does. The Wizards of Smart that crunch the numbers have come to the conclusion that the risk of 250 FOs is acceptable when compared to the cost savings. The public does. They keep buying tickets and flying even thought the kid in the right seat has less experience than their plumber. (Caveat, the public probably does not know the intricacies of FAA licensing and the lack of experience of some crews. All they know is the very low accident rate and assume the risk is minimal.)

The point here is that our jobs have lost value in the marketplace because of the expanded labor pool offered by hiring pilots with minimal experience at the entry level. More pilots equals less competition equals lower value. The only way to increase our value is to make our labor more scarce. We could go Shakespearean and "First thing we kill all the pilots!" (My apologies to William the Bard from who's play "King Henry VI part 2" this paraphrase was lifted). That would be counter productive, however. The real problem is we don't control the barriers to entry into the marketplace. The government does. The FAA is the license authority, not the pilots union as with the trade unions. To make our labor more scare we should lobby the FAA and Congress and the public to require all seats in a Part 121 aircraft to require an ATP. If the left seat must posses and ATP they why not the right? Is the FO not responsible for the safe operation of that aircraft? If the CA becomes incapacitated or is making a mistake (I know, that never happens :-) ) shouldn't the FO have the same skills and enough experience to take over or recognize the danger? The ATP requirement would be a huge barrier to the entry level of the marketplace and would make our labor more scarce and thus raise its value. The laws of the economic jungle rule.

hurricanechaser

Regional Airline FO's were orginally all coming from the same background. A military background where they could accept less pay for more experience at a civilian airline job. Why could they accept less pay, well becuase they enjoy either one of two things. They can collect half of their orginnal salary from their previous governement job in the form of pension payments. Or they could join the guard/reserves and make some extra cash on the weekends.

After they became trained to meet ATP standards they could become their own Captain of a civilian Airline and make some more serious cash. So anytime you look at the depressed wages of a regional FO, that is the end result of a government subsudized program call military pilot training.

Yes that's right another reason to blame the govt for all your problems. But hey, instead of *****ing about it, go join the Reserves or ANG. That dirty little secret that not too many know about.

bryris

This is VERY true and hits the nail on the head. And I hate to say that I fall into that pool, but I do. I got on with 726 hours TT, 40 ME, and 270 hours of dual given. I consider myself lucky that I've worked up to nearly 2,000 hours now, well over 1,000 ME, etc. However, am I really that lucky? I have made the decision to pull out of the airlines (at least for a while to build some better insurance elsewhere) for lack of quality compensation (money, QOL, career progression AND family). So what comes first? The chicken or the egg?

I got the opportunity to do this job for a good while. But what forces were already at play in the industry that led to me landing the job? I can walk around with my head high and label myself "Mr. Worthy Airline Pilot Guy", but I am well aware that my break was due to the basic degradation of the profession already in progress.

I am not sure if there really was a pilot shortage or not. However, if there was, and the airlines keep growing, what else can they do to staff the airplanes? There are always plenty of guys coming out of ERAU and the like with 212.4 hours TT. Many branch off to other professions, which makes the bottom rungs plentiful. If there wasn't a pilot shortage - well, that just plain sucks to those well qualified pilots who got bypassed because management didn't want to pay them what they are worth. I am afraid the latter is the likely scenario.

757upspilot

I hope that with all the back and forth with the experienced pilots and after having examined your web page that you understand that you are the FO that is being carried by his Captain.

bryris

A bit demeaning isn't it?

I am closing in on 2,000 hours now, and have attained all company/FAA standards for an upgrade. I would have been captain right now had it not been for the slow down. I have flown with many captains who had upgraded with less time than I have right now.

My point was that I got a break as compared to standards of the past and I attribute that in part to the forces talked about in the post I quoted. What you are saying goes right to challenging my competence in the cockpit. Why am I even wasting my time with this post? I think it is safe to assume you haven't flown with me.

RIGHT NOW, however, I have over 1,000 hours of 121 experience. I've seen many things. There isn't a single captain that I've flown with who has felt like they are supporting me in the cockpit. I can land at ORD/IAD/DEN,etc just above mins, navigate the taxi ways deal with the radios, just as well as the captain could. I've passed all checkrides and orals the first time. I've had to divert and have been there right along with the captains. I've dealt with medical emergencies in the air, I've written things up, made changes to releases (pen and ink), etc just as the captains have. And I have corrected captains in certain situations as well.

If it makes you feel "holier than thou" to demean what I have achieved in the nearly 11 years I've been flying, then go ahead.

I will not negate that the captain has higher authority than I. We each wear our own hats and do our own jobs. But we are BOTH there as check and balances for the flight. And rest assured, if the captain became incapacitated, I would step in as acting PIC and decisions would be made to effect a safe outcome of the flight.

Also, I am curious: What is it about my website that assists you in justifying your comment?